[johnnyanmac]

Thanks, that does make some sense. 2013 and flash made enough sense, I was wondering how old this article was when it was still talking about Window XP legacy support (which ended in.. .2014,5 at the latest?). .

>These sites are rarely ever responsive. If you're lucky, there's a mobile version that works based on user agent sniffing, and often suffers from feature parity issues.

It does suck, but responsive design as a paradigm didn't really exist in the mid 2000's , even in the west (and as the article noted, tech takes time to cross the language barrier). These were the days where you had two web domains with one specifically designed for mobile and one for desktop. But I'm not quite sure how those pre-smartphone mobile sites scale to today's smartphone/tablet screens. Probably not well.